I guess it's easier for people with extraverted judgement ego to follow common rules (either rules of a group or rules of business).

If they are conformists, then conforming is their own way...

I agree with ashlesha, types will just try to get their own way with their ego functions so it looks more or less moral. FiSe may stand strong for what they believe right and seem highly moral [key word is seem], while an Si may bail out because confrontation is not what they want, so look like a conformist or a coward. They just don't value the same thing.
Te could to look amoral (or immoral?) because efficiency.

Fi is about preferences but it also manifests as a focus on moral evaluation of people/actions. And of course this doesn't necessarily mean ESIs are more moral.

Not saying you'd necessarily disagree with this point but borrowing your post here to jump off of and play devil's advocate:

Wouldn't a person who spends most of their mental focus on, and evaluates others with something like that, and bases their ego off of it, also typically be more likely to be more moral than average at the very least as well? I'm not saying morally perfect, but when you spend most of your time doing a thing, you tend to be better at it than not. The chances of failure are going to be lower when compared to the average person who doesn't use that skill.

And then to play devil's advocate in the other direction again, I want to point out that often times once a person thinks they're good at something to the point where it's second-nature, they start to become lazy with it. I pretty much think this logic applies to every lead function IE.

Each type has a valued introverted judgement function, so the conformity of people are limited.

Originally Posted by wonderland

I agree with ashlesha, types will just try to get their own way with their ego functions so it looks more or less moral. FiSe may stand strong for what they believe right and seem highly moral [key word is seem], while an Si may bail out because confrontation is not what they want, so look like a conformist or a coward. They just don't value the same thing.

There is a lot more to consider, not just functions. Values by upbringing and personal expierence in life, f.i.

As a person with 1D Fi and 2D Fe, I have feelings, but I have no idea what to think about them. I don't trust them and I try very hard not to let my feelings affect my actions.

And my morals are pretty situational. However, I'm aware of this and view it as a potential weakness and am therefore looking for input in this area, which I will be happy to consider in the light of rational analysis.

Can 1D Te implement? Therefore can they demand it from others? Therefore they moralize while being amoral themselves.

If 1D Te is valued, then Te is sought. If 1D Te is not valued, then Te is not trusted. I'm not sure you can extend this to Fi morals.

In any case, I think that Fi is not associated directly with morality. Rather, Fi is purely the assignment of personal value to objects and actions. The assignment of value to an action can be interpreted as being associated with a moral system, but it is not the moral system itself. Nor does it determine the absolute morality of the action, if there even is such a thing.

As a person with 1D Fi and 2D Fe, I have feelings, but I have no idea what to think about them. I don't trust them and I try very hard not to let my feelings affect my actions.

For some reason that struck me as tragic. Guess that's Fe super-id instead of Fe super-ego.

LSI-C 6w5 8w9 3w4 sx/so

Every problem on earth can be solved by the liberal application of ordnance

"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life."

For some reason that struck me as tragic. Guess that's Fe super-id instead of Fe super-ego.

Aside from the subjective feeling that I'm not very assured about how to interpret what I'm feeling, it can be objectively very good. Whether I like someone or don't like them, I tend to treat them the same.

It's like the idea that "All men are created equal". They are not, of course, but they do have equal rights under the law. Ideally, that is.

Morality improves over time, and is therefore objective like any other knowledge and exists independently of any person. To say that morality "comes from" within a person is absurd.

In any culture and any society, morality improves over time. Therefore, everybody's morality will ultimately be wrong and abhorrent. We'd all think people from thousands of years ago were barbaric and abhorrent.

@Adam Strange I just said that because extroverts have more force and extroversion in general, whether or not the morals being enforced are actually good or it's being done effectively or not. That was my impression of what Troll meant too.

Not saying you'd necessarily disagree with this point but borrowing your post here to jump off of and play devil's advocate:

Wouldn't a person who spends most of their mental focus on, and evaluates others with something like that, and bases their ego off of it, also typically be more likely to be more moral than average at the very least as well? I'm not saying morally perfect, but when you spend most of your time doing a thing, you tend to be better at it than not. The chances of failure are going to be lower when compared to the average person who doesn't use that skill.

And then to play devil's advocate in the other direction again, I want to point out that often times once a person thinks they're good at something to the point where it's second-nature, they start to become lazy with it. I pretty much think this logic applies to every lead function IE.

Fi is a specific kind of "moral" evaluation though. Specifically it's about how to treat other people in the context of the relationship you have with them. Ti's principles are also a big factor in evaluating morality, just as much as Fi is, one which Fi leads reject. So are Fi leads more likely to treat their close relations with respect, loyalty, devotion, etc.? That's more reasonable to say, but again a big part of it (Fi) is subjective.

I might add that the same thing applies to Ti: Ti egos aren't always more "logical", but they are still focused on logical structure.

Fi is a specific kind of "moral" evaluation though. Specifically it's about how to treat other people in the context of the relationship you have with them. Ti's principles are also a big factor in evaluating morality, just as much as Fi is, one which Fi leads reject. So are Fi leads more likely to treat their close relations with respect, loyalty, devotion, etc.? That's more reasonable to say, but again a big part of it (Fi) is subjective.

I might add that the same thing applies to Ti: Ti egos aren't always more "logical", but they are still focused on logical structure.

Ok. As far as I am concerned, Fi as it's described like this is just a spook to me. I want an Fi lead to objectively describe Fi to me lol.

Healthy Fi types are inherently more moral in their behavior because that's the way they interpret life. They will fulfill their obligations, be polite with everyone, etc etc just like a healthy Se type will be kinda bossy with everyone but in a way that benefits the whole environment.
Unhealthy Fi types have been nicely described by jung - crazy scheming paraonoids who can justify the worst actions in themselves just because others are'evil'

@Adam Strange I just said that because extroverts have more force and extroversion in general, whether or not the morals being enforced are actually good or it's being done effectively or not. That was my impression of what Troll meant too.

@sbbds, I can see understand your argument. I was objecting to Jung’s association of morals with extroverted types. On a fundamental level, I just can’t see that.

Healthy Fi types are inherently more moral in their behavior because that's the way they interpret life. They will fulfill their obligations, be polite with everyone, etc etc just like a healthy Se type will be kinda bossy with everyone but in a way that benefits the whole environment.
Unhealthy Fi types have been nicely described by jung - crazy scheming paraonoids who can justify the worst actions in themselves just because others are'evil'

I think this is why sometimes ESIs are pinned as hypocritical. If it's inside the realm of preferences and interests, that's when I can get uppity but that's just me.

It also would depend on the environment one is raised in and abounds no? I wouldn't consider myself as known for being a morally righteous person, nor would I do that for other ESIs. If something, I think duty and overrides morals or at least what people perceive Fi to be.

I feel like despite the transition from MBTI to Socionics (lol that sounded weird), some people still think Fi means being a flowery person who is ultra sensitive.

Calling Fi "ethics" in English Socionics terminology has led people to focus wrongly on a phenomenon that is determined by all the information elements. "Feeling" is actually a better word for Fi and Fe. Its associations are closer to the actual reality of Fi and Fe.

Example:

Te dominant types are often unaware of their personal feelings (Fi) determining their judgment outside of their conscious awareness. They sincerely believe their judgment is the result of an objective process and are unaware of the influence.

Ti dominant types are unaware of how the emotion they receive from the external environment determines their process of logic or perceptions of categories. They think they are acting based on an impetus that is entirely internal and within themselves when in reality the external feedback they receive emotionally from other people determines their thought.

The reason for the mis-association of Fi with morality is the gravity that people attribute to Fi types. People usually associate gravity and severity with morality.

Fi is just personal internal feeling that isn't exposed openly. Fi types can appear serious to Fe types because of the lack of emotional feedback Fi valuers tend to supply when those types have spent a lot of time in egosyntonic environments.

They look so for Te types, at least. They irrationally inspire higher ethical/moral trust to them and are more restrained from acting "badly" for the taste of Fi/Te types.

Also all F types understand better a morality and hence may behave to look better in this. Fi types try to be more pleasant, Fe to be more respectable - this is linked with morally good behavior. People having differing valued Fi/Fe may to have worse perception of their actions, - it's not objective partly.

Calling Fi "ethics" in English Socionics terminology has led people to focus wrongly on a phenomenon that is determined by all the information elements. "Feeling" is actually a better word for Fi and Fe. Its associations are closer to the actual reality of Fi and Fe.

Example:

Te dominant types are often unaware of their personal feelings (Fi) determining their judgment outside of their conscious awareness. They sincerely believe their judgment is the result of an objective process and are unaware of the influence.

Ti dominant types are unaware of how the emotion they receive from the external environment determines their process of logic or perceptions of categories. They think they are acting based on an impetus that is entirely internal and within themselves when in reality the external feedback they receive emotionally from other people determines their thought.

The reason for the mis-association of Fi with morality is the gravity that people attribute to Fi types. People usually associate gravity and severity with morality.

Fi is just personal internal feeling that isn't exposed openly. Fi types can appear serious to Fe types because of the lack of emotional feedback Fi valuers tend to supply when those types have spent a lot of time in egosyntonic environments.

I agree. Socionics doesn't treat Fi like how Jung described it. I think Fi and Fe are on a scale of emotional expression, with Fi being emotion that is very strong, but not expressed and Fe being strong emotion that is openly expressed. Fi types don't like to openly express their emotions. Pretty simple concept really that has become "ethics of relations", which really sounds like some Ti bullshit.